(21-02-2017 12:19 PM)Naielis Wrote: If there is no quantity outside of our abstract system, then our system can't explain reality. There must be a property of things that we can call quantity.

Wrong.
Our systems don't "explain reality".
Our systems LEARN to approximate it to various degrees .....
"aspects of our models", ...... (see above) all which have errors, and no two are identical. Ever.

But it's impossible to talk about error without knowing something about actual reality. And our systems do explain reality. Mathematics explains reality.

Our friend Naielis has made a fundamental error. It's an easy one to make and I don't think less of him for making it.

Materialism (sometimes it's called "naturalism" which, somewhat sadly, has nothing to do with nudity) is not a starting point from which to view the world.

Materialism is the conclusion, after observing, testing, theorizing and drawing conclusions from the natural world. It is not the start point; it is the end point.

Having a non-material "entity" or "force" influencing material things like atoms and molecules etc would require an entire re-writing of physics.

Well, the fundamentals of physics are very well understood. They make predictions and, well, they work. We know that they are correct because they have been tested and have been proven to work, without fail, every single time.

Adding an entirely separate non-material world to a world that we already know exists, and we know how it works, means re-inventing physics from the ground up to incorporate something that cannot be tested or make predictions.

So, we have a choice: we can assume a non-material world that cannot be tested and cannot be trusted to be predictable, that exists (though it can't be sensed) in addition to our material world which would require a re-writing of physical laws that we know already work, which would also go about violating the terms of Occam's Razor

Or

We can go with what we know, what we can test, what can make predictions and what's valid.

No. I'm with Bucky here. Mathematics can be used to model reality. It "explains" nothing.

Well I meant systems in general. I didn't necessarily mean math itself. But I'm not convinced math can't explain things. Also I don't think math is a model. 1+1=2 is necessarily true. This is because set theory is necessarily true and logical laws are necessarily true.

(21-02-2017 03:33 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote: Our friend Naielis has made a fundamental error. It's an easy one to make and I don't think less of him for making it.

Materialism (sometimes it's called "naturalism" which, somewhat sadly, has nothing to do with nudity) is not a starting point from which to view the world.

Materialism is the conclusion, after observing, testing, theorizing and drawing conclusions from the natural world. It is not the start point; it is the end point.

I'm sorry but this is plainly false. Materialism is a metaphysical starting point. To even arrive at evidence through sense perception, you have to establish certain principles. http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/#H3

That may have been the case when there was thought to be a rational argument for dualism, but since it - dualism - has been discredited and proven (as much as anything can be proven) to be wrong, the substantive argument of materialism remains and is, AFAIK, the only possible conclusion.

We've been over this before and there has yet to be a cogent argument for dualism, whereas the arguments for materialism are rational, predictable, logical and testable.

(21-02-2017 03:21 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: No. I'm with Bucky here. Mathematics can be used to model reality. It "explains" nothing.

Well I meant systems in general. I didn't necessarily mean math itself. But I'm not convinced math can't explain things. Also I don't think math is a model. 1+1=2 is necessarily true. This is because set theory is necessarily true and logical laws are necessarily true.

You are using "mathematics" and "set theory" in a different sense than I am. Are you aware that there are different versions of set theory, and that some of them allow internal contradictions? To me, mathematics and set theory are human constructions which attempt to model reality, with varying degrees of success. Logically perfect formal systems (which can be constructed) may or may not have any correspondence with reality. I don't confuse the two. Yes, the reality modeled by the statement "1+1=2" is necessarily true, but that reality is not mathematics -- it's just a brute fact. Mathematics is our way of describing and expressing that fact, among others.

Mathematics is an elaborate game (which I have played and enjoyed) that happens to be useful in modelling physical reality, but is not necessarily so. Which geometry is "necessarily" true in the real world -- Euclidean or one of the non-Euclidean systems (and which one)?

That may have been the case when there was thought to be a rational argument for dualism, but since it - dualism - has been discredited and proven (as much as anything can be proven) to be wrong, the substantive argument of materialism remains and is, AFAIK, the only possible conclusion.

We've been over this before and there has yet to be a cogent argument for dualism, whereas the arguments for materialism are rational, predictable, logical and testable.

You need to research more on the history of philosophy because you really don't know what you're talking about. Dualism, while less popular, is still very prevalent among philosophers. It hasn't been disproved in the slightest.

(21-02-2017 03:54 PM)Naielis Wrote: Well I meant systems in general. I didn't necessarily mean math itself. But I'm not convinced math can't explain things. Also I don't think math is a model. 1+1=2 is necessarily true. This is because set theory is necessarily true and logical laws are necessarily true.

You are using "mathematics" and "set theory" in a different sense than I am. Are you aware that there are different versions of set theory, and that some of them allow internal contradictions? To me, mathematics and set theory are human constructions which attempt to model reality, with varying degrees of success. Logically perfect formal systems (which can be constructed) may or may not have any correspondence with reality. I don't confuse the two. Yes, the reality modeled by the statement "1+1=2" is necessarily true, but that reality is not mathematics -- it's just a brute fact. Mathematics is our way of describing and expressing that fact, among others.

Mathematics is an elaborate game (which I have played and enjoyed) that happens to be useful in modelling physical reality, but is not necessarily so. Which geometry is "necessarily" true in the real world -- Euclidean or one of the non-Euclidean systems (and which one)?

Brute facts are an interesting concept, but they lack any cogent explanation. Things must be grounded. The language that we call mathematics itself is merely a human construction. But there are also ontological properties of reality that math mirrors. These aren't brute facts. But they are necessary.